Paper · 1990 · Agronomy Journal

Utilizing Legume Cropping Systems to Reduce Nitrogen Fertilizer Requirements for Conservation‐tilled Corn

L. J. Oyer; J. T. Touchton

9
claims
22
verbatim quotes
59
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract The need to reduce production costs has promoted a renewed interest in using legumes as a source of N for non‐leguminous summer crops. Development of legume cropping systems which will permit reseeding of winter cover‐crop legumes is a promising approach to reducing legume establishment costs. Field studies were conducted in Alabama for 4 yr on Wynnville sandy loam and Dothan fine‐sandy loam soils (fine‐loamy, siliceous, thermic, Glossic Fragiudults and Plinthic Paleudults, respectively) to determine the effects of both cash crop and winter cover‐crop legumes in cropping systems on N fertilizer requirements of corn ( Zea mays L.) grown in a conservation‐tillage system. On the Wynnville soil, soybean ( Glycine max L. Merr.) was more effective in providing early season N, and clover ( Trifolium incarnatum L.) in providing late‐season N. The system with both soybean and clover resulted in an even more effective contribution of N to corn grain yield, and a higher yield level than that of continuous corn regardless of N fertilizer rate. On the Dothan soil, the benefits of cropping systems were not as pronounced, and the responses were eliminated by N fertilization, suggesting increased yields were due to N and not to a rotation effect. On both soils, in years of adequate and inadequate rainfall, the reseeding crimson clover system, in combination with a soybean‐corn rotation, consistently produced the highest yields of the systems studied, and provided a 68 to 159 kg N ha −1 fertilizer equivalent for corn.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

On the Wynnville soil, soybean was more effective than clover in providing early-season N to corn.

Treatment
soybeane1
Outcome
providing early season Ne1
Direction
more effectivee1
Setting
Wynnville soile1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“N fertilizer requirements of corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 598–631 · show in text ↑
e1

“On the Wynnville soil, soybean ( Glycine max L. Merr.) was more effective in providing early season N”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 687–788 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

On the Wynnville soil, clover was effective in providing late-season N to corn.

Treatment
clovere2
Outcome
providing late‐season Ne2
Direction
more effectivee1
Setting
Wynnville soile1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“N fertilizer requirements of corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 598–631 · show in text ↑
e1

“On the Wynnville soil, soybean ( Glycine max L. Merr.) was more effective in providing early season N”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 687–788 · show in text ↑
e2

“clover ( Trifolium incarnatum L.) in providing late‐season N”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 794–854 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The system with both soybean and clover contributed more N to corn grain yield.

Treatment
system with both soybean and clovere3
Outcome
contribution of N to corn grain yielde3
Direction
more effectivee3

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“N fertilizer requirements of corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 598–631 · show in text ↑
e3

“The system with both soybean and clover resulted in an even more effective contribution of N to corn grain yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 856–968 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The system with both soybean and clover gave a higher corn yield level than continuous corn, regardless of N fertilizer rate.

Treatment
system with both soybean and clovere3
Outcome
yield levele4
Direction
highere4
Qualifier
regardless of N fertilizer ratee4
Comparator
continuous corne4

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“N fertilizer requirements of corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 598–631 · show in text ↑
e3

“The system with both soybean and clover resulted in an even more effective contribution of N to corn grain yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 856–968 · show in text ↑
e4

“a higher yield level than that of continuous corn regardless of N fertilizer rate”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 974–1055 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

On the Dothan soil, the benefits of cropping systems for corn were not as pronounced.

Outcome
benefits of cropping systemse5
Qualifier
not as pronouncede5
Setting
Dothan soile5

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“N fertilizer requirements of corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 598–631 · show in text ↑
e5

“On the Dothan soil, the benefits of cropping systems were not as pronounced”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1057–1132 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

N fertilization eliminated the responses to cropping systems on the Dothan soil.

Treatment
N fertilizatione6
Outcome
responsese6
Direction
decreaseinferrede6

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“N fertilizer requirements of corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 598–631 · show in text ↑
e6

“the responses were eliminated by N fertilization”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1138–1186 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The increased corn yields were attributed to N rather than to a rotation effect.

Outcome
increased yieldse7
Qualifier
due to N and not to a rotation effecte7

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“N fertilizer requirements of corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 598–631 · show in text ↑
e7

“suggesting increased yields were due to N and not to a rotation effect”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1188–1258 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The reseeding crimson clover system gave the highest corn yields of the systems studied, in years of adequate and inadequate rainfall.

Treatment
the reseeding crimson clover systeme1
Outcome
yieldse2
Direction
higheste2
Qualifier
in years of adequate and inadequate rainfalle3
Comparator
the systems studiede2

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“N fertilizer requirements of corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 598–631 · show in text ↑
e1

“the reseeding crimson clover system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1321–1356 · show in text ↑
e2

“consistently produced the highest yields of the systems studied”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1403–1466 · show in text ↑
e3

“in years of adequate and inadequate rainfall”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1275–1319 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The reseeding crimson clover system with soybean-corn rotation provided a 68 to 159 kg N ha-1 fertilizer equivalent for corn.

Outcome
fertilizer equivalente1
Value
68 to 159 kg N ha −1e1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“N fertilizer requirements of corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 598–631 · show in text ↑
e1

“provided a 68 to 159 kg N ha −1 fertilizer equivalent for corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1472–1534 · show in text ↑

Glycine max · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

180 papers: 155 positive, 25 negative or no effect

154 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

176 papers more in this group

See all 180 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.